A Poor Defence of a Liberal Labour Policy

Published:Zvezda, No. 24 (60), April 1, 1912.

      Signed:F. L-ko.

      Published according to theZvezdatext.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,[1974],

      Moscow,Volume 17,

      pages556-561.Translated:Dora CoxTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

InNo. 8 ofZhivoye DyeloMartov replies to my
article, “An Organ of a Liberal Labour Policy”, published in No. 11 ofZvezda.[1]The question under discussion concerns the fundamental line to be followed
by the workers in the election campaign and, therefore, merits special
attention.

IdescribedZhivoye Dyeloas a publication with aliberallabour policy on the following grounds:

(1) The slogan is sued by Martov and Dan about dislodging reaction from its
positionsin the Duma, about wresting theDumafrom the
hands of the reactionaries, is not a democratic, but a liberal, slogan. The
struggle against “reaction” in Russia, far from being confined to the
wresting of the Duma from the hands of the reactionaries, isnotevenfocussedon this.

(2) In speaking of the possibility of achieving this aim, Martov started by
embellishing our electoral law. He declared that “a majority of electors
from the landowners and the first urban curia” is guaranteed “in a
considerable number of gubernia assemblies”. I reminded him of the facts:
that this majority is guaranteed inallgubernia assemblies, that
in 28 out of 53 gubernias a majority (in the assemblies) is guaranteed to
the landownersalone, and that these gubernias send 255 out of a
total of some 440 deputies to the Duma.

(3) In speaking of dislodging reaction from its positions in the Duma,
Martov forgot that the Dumacannotbecome any thing more than alandowners’ liberal opposition. The slogan issued by Martov and
Dan implies wresting thelandownerfrom the grip of reaction.

(4) In saying that it is to the interest of the workers that power should
be transferred to the “civilised bourgeoisie”, Martov “forgot” to
mention one thing, namely, that it is to the interest of the liberals toshare power with Purishkevich so as to prevent democracy from possessing
“a single weapon”!

(5) In saying that, by growing stronger in the Duma, the Cadets “are
facilitating their advance towards power”, Martov forgot the experience of
1905–06 in Russia, of 1789 and subsequent years in France and of 1911 in
China. This experience tells us that power is transferred to the liberals
(or further to the left) only when democracy triumphsin spiteof
the liberals.

(6) Consequently, Martov accepts Marxism only insofar as it is acceptable
to any educated liberal.

Whatdoes Martov reply to these six points? Nothing. He maintains
absolute silence. Why then start a controversy if you have decided to say
nothing?

Whilepassing over in silenceallmy arguments, Martov tries
to “catch” me in the following passage from my article:

“Thepractical task that faces us at the elections is
   by no means ‘to dislodge reaction from its positions in the Duma’, but
   to strengthen the forces of democracy in general and of working-class
   democracy in particular. This task may sometimes clash with the ‘task’
   of increasing the number of liberals, but five

			      additional[2]democrats are more important to us, and more useful to the proletariat,
   than fifty additional liberals.”

“Thepractical task that faces us at the elections is
   by no means ‘to dislodge reaction from its positions in the Duma’, but
   to strengthen the forces of democracy in general and of working-class
   democracy in particular. This task may sometimes clash with the ‘task’
   of increasing the number of liberals, but five

			      additional[2]democrats are more important to us, and more useful to the proletariat,
   than fifty additional liberals.”

Quotingthis passage, Martov (pretending that be has caught “an
adherent of reaction”!) gleefully exclaims:

“I suggest that the readers ponder over this phrase”. I heartily support
this proposal.

Martovbegins to ponder and in so doing arrives at the following
syllogism: The law now provides for a second ballot
everywhere. Consequently, “there may be only one instance” when,
by repulsing fifty liberals, we can elect five democrats. Such an
“instance” involvessellingthe democratic vote to the Black
Hundreds in exchange for seats in the Duma.

AndMartov rejoices and prances for a full fifty lines, pretending that
he has smitten an abettor of the Black Hundreds and that in smiting F. L-ko
he has also “hit”

W. Frey[4]who “is steering the same course”.

Martovmust think his readers are very naïve. And how careless it
was of him to suggest to readers that they shouldponder, while he
himself writeswithout thinking.

Thepassage in my article to which Martov took such strong exception
posestwoquestions for thinking people to answer:

(1) Is it true that five democrats in the Duma are of greater use to the
workers than fifty liberals?

(2) Is it possible for these tasks to “clash” in actual practice?

Thepondering Martov evaded the first questionaltogether. That’s a pity. You, Messrs. Liquidators, evade
questions of politics in order to accuse us of partiality for
arithmetic. Fifty liberals in the Duma will give the people a pile ofsham democraticspeeches, thereby corrupting the people, and afew“reforms” which, to begin with, will be confined to
wash-basins, and, secondly, will be held up in the Council of State and soforth. Five democrats, on the other hand, will use the Duma
rostrum to explain to the people a number of truths ofdemocracy(and workers will use the rostrum also to explain some of the truths of
socialism). Which is more useful to the proletariat?

Thesecond question. Is Martov right when he says that the task of
electing five democrats (“additional”, i. e., in addition to those we
have at present)may clashwith the task of electing fifty
liberalsonlyin the case which he mentions? For after inviting
the readers to ponder, Martov declares without further ado: “There may be
only one such instance.”

IfMartov is right, the reader ought to accuse me, F. L-ko, either of
discussing an impossible case, or of a secret desire to sell the votes of
the democrats to the Black Hundreds in exchange for seats in the Duma (a
secret andstupiddesire, I may add confidentially. Imagine
Purishkevich purchasing the votes of the friends of Petrov the Third and
Voiloshnikovin exchange forelecting Voiloshnikov to the Fourth
Duma—that is the sort of probability in which the “pondering” Martov
indulges).

Ifthere can be anotherinstance of these two tasks clashing,
then Martov is wrong.

Thus,is another instance of such a clash possible?There could be,
without any doubt, if at thesecond ballotthe democrats,
without entering into an agreement with the liberals, were to fight both
the Rights and the liberals.

Thatis all there is to

				 it.[3]

Thepondering Martov, like all the liquidators, is a prisoner of the
idea of two camps, and fails to notice the fight waged by a third camp both
against the first and against the second!

Immediatelyfollowing the passage which fills Martov with indignation,
it says in my article:

“Hencethe following conclusion [“hence”, dear Martov!] which Martov
refuses to draw, even though he does pretend to agree that the Cadets arenotdemocrats, but liberals:

(1) in the five big cities, in the event of a second ballot, agreements are
permissibleonlywith the democrats against the liberals;

(2) atallthe ballots and inallthe agreements at the
second stage,precedenceshould be given to agreements with the
democrats against the liberals, and only subsequently may agreements be
concluded with the liberals against the Rights”.

Martovmentionedonlythe second point, and declared that I
was not telling the truth, because Martov agrees with that point (it
remains to be seen whetherallthe liquidators agree!),but he
maintained silence on the first point!

Onceagain: either you keep silent or you argue the issue.

Inthe event of a second ballot being taken in the five cities, the
general line should be: with the democratsagainstthe
liberals. Agreements with the liberals to beprohibited(for
experience has shown that on thewholethere is no danger of a
Black-Hundred victory in any of these cities).

Areyoufororagainstthis sort of prohibition? Give
a straight answer.

Further,whatcanbe the practical result of this second
ballot? The votes may be dividednearlyequally among the three
camps. The issue is then decided by the relative majority. Take the
simplest example: out of a total of 100 votes, the Rights command 33, the
liberals 33, and the democrats 34 votes. The democratic candidate is
elected. One voteless for the Social-Democrat and one vote more for the reactionary may
decide the issue in favour of the Black Hundreds!

Thereare two lines of working-class policy: theliberalline—fear above all the election of a reactionary, therefore surrender
the leadership to the liberal without a fight! TheMarxistline—do not be dismayed by the liberal cries about the danger of a
Black-Hundred victory, butboldlyplunge into a “three-cornered”
contest (to use the English expression). As a general rule there is no
danger of the Black Hundreds gaining a victory. And if in exceptional cases
a Black-Hundred candidate is elected, this will be compensated for by the
fact thathere and there democrats well be elected!...

Youcannot learn to swim unless you go into the water. There can be no
contest in which all the chances are known beforehand. If the workers allow
themselves to be frightened by the liberal cries about the danger of a
Black-Hundred victory, they willneverlearn to fight in a
“three-cornered” contest. Everywhere in the world the camp of reaction
and the liberal camp rallied their forces earlier and were better organised
(with the aid of reactionary laws, of course) than the workers. Everywhere
in the world the liberals tell the workers the very same things that Martov
is repeating.

Now,for one more, and final, step to show the “pondering” Martov
what it means to ponder over matters.

Atthe second ballot in the five cities, agreements with the liberals
are prohibited. In other cases of a second ballot such agreements are not
prohibited. Does this mean that they will be concludedas a rule?
It seems not, doesn’t it?

Ifthere isnoagreement, may it not happen that ineachcase of a second ballot the votes will be divided nearly
equally among the three camps?

Apparentlyit may be, if one really “ponders” over it.

Fromthis follows the conclusion that there are two lines of
working-class policy.

Theliberal labour policy: there is a swing to the left in the country;
“therefore” ... fear above all the danger of a Black-Hundred victory; the
slogan is to dislodge reaction from its positions in the Duma; but only the
liberals can dislodge it from its positions in the Duma;threfore, you mustnot “threaten” the liberals, or “extort” seats from them—surely it is
unbecoming for “cultured” workers to extort any thing from such nice
people as the liberals!—but be prepared to make every kind of concession
in concluding agreements with the liberals, and steer clear of a
“three-cornered” contest.

TheMarxist working-class policy: there is a swing to the left in the
country; therefore, do not believe the liberal fables about the danger of a
Black-Hundred victory; when entering into agreements with the liberals, you
must by all meansthreaten them and extortfrom them seats in the
Duma; and in order to lend weight to your threats, worker comrades, don’t
fear a “three-cornered” contest; boldly engage in such a fight, and
expose the counter-revolutionary liberals to the people; to be sure,
wherever there is a fight, there is a possibility of defeat, here and there
a reactionary may be elected, but, on the other hand,here and there
democrats will be elected; it is better for five additional democrats
to get into the Duma than for fifty additional liberals; as a general rule,
the Black Hundreds will not win in the elections, for the Purishkeviches
are too well known, and the liberals arepurposelytrying to scare
the people by magnifying the danger of a Black-Hundred victory in order to
secure the leadership for themselves (although the Maklakovs are almost as
black as the Black Hundreds) and ward off the danger threatening them from
the “left”.

Tosum up: he made no reply to a single point of the six I brought up
in dealing with the liberal labour policy. He ignored the question of
prohibiting blocs with the liberals in the five cities. He gave no thought
to three-cornered election fightsatthe second ballot, although
he had promised to “ponder”. On the other hand, there are two things he
did accomplish:

(1) he defended the liberals from “threats”, and

(2) accused Voiloshnikov’s friends of plotting with Purishkevich to sell
votes to him on condition that Purishkevich,in exchange, should
help elect Voiloshnikovs to the Fourth Duma!!

[1]Seepp. 487–90 of this volume.—Ed.

[2]Therewas a misprint in the article: “strong” instead of
   “additional”. Martov might have easily noticed that it was absurd to
   juxtapose “strong” democrats to “additional” liberals. But that is
   not the point at issue.  —Lenin

[3]Thefollowing “terrible” suspicion occurs to me: is it possible that
Martov’s whole article is to be explained by hisnot knowingthat,
according to the law, the second ballot represents new elections and not a
contest between two candidates? If this is the case, it will be necessary,
before “fighting reaction” in the elections, to light ignorance of the
electoral law!  —Lenin

[4]F.L–ko,W. Fey—Lenin’s pseudonyms.